Social Security 101

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,

4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent “Trust Fund” rather than into the General Operating Fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month — and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to “put away” — you may be interested in the following:

————————————————————-

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent “Trust Fund” and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.

——————————————————————–

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

———————————————————————–

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the “tie-breaking” deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US.

——————————————————————-

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

AND MY FAVORITE:

A: That’s right!

Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!

————– ————————– ——————————

AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
-Thomas Jefferson

Since it's obvious this is a total clusterf#*@, can I just tell my employer to stop paying my Social and Medicare? What a joke! Not that it's news. We've been having this conversation for years. I blame all the politicians from both parties who have deferred addressing the problem. I shred the statements from Social Security that tell me how much I will recieve. And the chickens#@t Left wants to scare seniors by telling them the Republicans want to take their benefits away. Hell, the money isn't there to take away to begin with! And people like Stan Gable and GrownupThought want to blame the people who do pay into the system for shortchanging people who didn't. 'Failure to pay a living wage'? How about failure to give employers a reason to pay anything but what you're worth! Time to pull the plug on this failed experiment in Social engineeering. The Left wants to chastise Tea Party attendees but the same people were crying 'Dissent is Patriotic' in '04. I'm working my butt off to keep from being a burden to society or my kids. What's the point? These thinly disguised Socialists want me to cover everyone who didn't put the same effort into improving themselves and thereby making them a valuable asset to their employers. Lacking compassion? That's why I volunteer my time(and donate money) and try to help people who I see need some help. But taking money out of my pocket, sending it to programs and people who have nothing to do with SS or Medicare is a crime by anyone's definition. Now do you guys understand why people are and will continue to get out in the streets and make themselves heard? Why do you guys think Europe is undergoing 'Change you can believe in'? Sarkozy and Merkel are a response to people realizing that the 'cradle to grave' business model is garbage. They may not be as conservative as some of our politicians but they are smart enough to know they can't keep going down the same path. The Brits seem ready to conduct joint Tea Party exercises because they know they are going broke with all the stupid 'here, let me do that for you' government. To sum it up...don't piss on my back and tell me it's raining!

GrownupThought....So billionaires shouldn't get back anything on the money they were forced to invest in SS? Okay.....why should they get free healthcare? (a.k.a. "Universal" healthcare)

Adakin....don't forget, there are many REPUBLICANS in Congress who are merely DEMOCRATS in disguise.

While listening to National Publik Radio on the way home from work, the discussion began about medicare and SS; after listening to the interviewer and the interviewee for less than a minute, I could see where it was going, and I yelled at the radio, "you liberal jackasses are going to raise our taxes again!" Less than 5 seconds later, the interviewee said, with glee, I might add, "if we increase payroll taxes by 2%, SS becomes solvent again!" WOW! The ole' commies at National Publik Radio have never enjoyed themselves more; a commie back in the White House and commies running the Congress - no wonder the dems are so happy. Nothing to fear from the worthless Republikans - not a one with a set of cajones in the bunch. All I have to say is, enjoy it while you can. Newt; where the hell are ye?

I have no idea why this would shock anyone. I don't remember ever paying into a welfare, WIC, or food stamp fund & since there are more people on those programs than employed tax payers it only makes sense that the camel's back has finally broken! It is simple math - when output exceeds input it equals a negative number! With all the fancy degrees the looters in DC have, you would think they could have figured this out a long time ago but then again I guess they did - they simply don't care. The real question is do we care & what are we going to do about it?

In 1997 then Congressman Mark Sanford (now Gov. of SC) proposed his Social Security Reform Act of 1997 bill which was promptly shelved by the House Ways & Means Chrm Bill Archer (R-Tx) and the Republican Majority leadership.

Sanford’s proposal would have phased in individual ownership of social security accounts. These accounts would be restricted to investing in a limited menu of mutual fund investments similar to the existing Chilean SS system and our own federal worker’s Thrift Savings Program (TSP). Sanford’s bill would have mandated that all workers under 35y/o pay 1/3 of their FICA tax into the existing SS “Trust Fund” system and the remaining 2/3s into their own account. It would have given the option for workers between 35 and 50 to “opt out” of the current Ponzi scheme and commence funding their own accounts with the same 1/3 – 2/3s division. If this age group chooses to remain in the current system they can, or they could choose the new system and receive a ‘recognition credit’ for the funds that they had previously paid into the old system. All workers over 50 years old would remain in the current federal SS system and receive the same benefits that they have always been promised.

What the Sanford proposal would have done was cap the ever growing liability that future taxpayers would have had to endure. It would have limited the amount that government would be obligated to pay. And it would move the responsibility of managing their assets to those that have the biggest interest in what those assets yield. The biggest benefit is that unlike our current system, these assets become part of the worker’s estate. When you die, the funds in your SS account can go to who ever you designate… your children, your church, your favorite charity… YOU choose.

Here we are 12 years later, and even with the recent 35-40% loss in everyone’s 401k portfolio value, a privately owned SS account would still have been far ahead of what the current system is promising us with their projected deficits just 6 years away. Not to mention that fact that the asset belongs to you and your estate when you pass.

Just imagine the numerous macro-economic benefits to society when the parents or grandparents pass and leave each (grand) child a couple hundred thousand bucks. Or your local church gets a quarter-mil from the periodic passing of a parishioner. You could suddenly pay off those student loans, or the mortgage, or fund an investment, or simply save it. If anything could break the ‘cycle of poverty’, this plan would certainly provide that opportunity for folks to do just that.

Don’t get hung up on the arguments that AARP made against private ownership of SS. The benefits far out weigh the negatives.

Stan,

Can you make a more ignorant statement? Let's say you are 67. Take a look at how much money you would have if you invested 12.4% of your income in the stock market and then look at how much you would have received from social security.

Betty, the cap on income for SSI was to keep it from becoming a welfare system. It set up a MAXIUM payout based on the taxes taken from the Cap. They originally wanted no cap, but they also did not want a unlimited MAXIUM PAYOUT based upon income (Hmmm mass payouts for the evil rich)! You cannot continue to refund SSI taxes (but these people will collect this payment with no contribution) via the EITC and still not understand why they are going broke. Don't forget that the EMPLOYER MATCHES YOU DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR! a combined 15% (rounded) goes into the black hole called SSI/Medicare. If I kept the books of my business(and structured my pension plans like SSI)the way the US government does I would be breaking rocks in Leavenworth KS. Seems Enron had issues with off book transactions (Raptors). And if you looked at your SSI yearly statement you probably collected more money in the 1st 2 years of retirement than you ever put in (exclusive of Medicare co pmts or services paid by medicare). Only FDR & the Dems would get away with setting the SSI date at 65 when the median life expectancy was 62 AND THERE WAS NO EARLY RETIREMENT. 1930's 42 payed in to each retiree vs today's 3 to 1, soon 2-1. Just the begining of the increases in cost of everthing!

Cap or no Cap, this type of system cannot exist long term.

Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme looks more and more like pocket-lint when compared to these two entitlement programs.

John Stossel recently did a 20/20 story on Social Security, and he said most seniors get paid back three times what they ever paid into the system. I just wonder how much more those "greedy geezers" would have for retirement, if they had privately invested their one-third in the market for forty years.

Contrary to popular propaganda Medicare is not free. I paid taxes before I retired and am now paying $96 a month to the gov plus an extra fee for drug cov I don't even need now and an extra fee per month not cheap for supplemental ins. Tell me how many people who have ins actually pay in premiums more than they receive in benefits? I pay more now for myself than I paid for me and my husband when I worked.

What will happen in the near future if the Obamaniacs get their way... is that they will come after my 401K and IRA via nationalization. The idea has already been floated once and Neal Boortz along with Matt Drudge covered it extensively.
It did not cause a horrible outrage so it is only a matter of time before Obama and his minions come after your privately held retirement funds in the name of "fairness" or "spreading the wealth".

Guess your in glee Mr. Boortz that this will some how benefit the GOP? I guess you did not listen to Obama's speech he is using this as a vehicle/excuse/justification to raise taxes on the rich! :-) And it will sell quite well to the seniors on social security, medicare, whom vote in droves when anything threatens their incomes! You keep on gloating on this one as if its a GOP victory, I predict your going to be in for one big awe and shock, since 2037 is a long way down the road and neither of us will likely be around to see it, we both ought to see 2017! With some luck, but am willing to bet and venture a guess, when all is done and said, your taxes will go up and you will be moaning, crying, whining the blues at it! :-)

The lesson here is that it's up to you to make enough money to be very comfortable. If you let government of anybody else determine your financial future than you are at their mercy.

Some people feel that it's not fair that you've invested in these program and now you don't reap the returns. We've all made hundreds of bad investments in one way, shape or form but we ultimately move on from them.

If you have a job, don't get another job. Invest. Start a small business. Open up multiple streams of income and acquire your own wealth so that you don't have to rely on government.

Ryan

They will fail and the left is licking its chops as only then can it replace them with something even more biased to those who do not work and something more Socialist and Ghastly.